Dorina M. van der Kolk

The role of drug efflux pumps in acute myeloid leukemia

A major problem in the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the occurrence of resistance to structurally and functionally unrelated chemotherapeutic agents, called multidrug resistance (MDR). One of the known MDR mechanisms is the overexpression of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent efflux pumps. Permeability-glycoprotein (P-gp), the best characterized of the human drug efflux pumps, has been shown to be associated with poor treatment outcome in AML patients. Besides P-gp, in addition the multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1) appeared to contribute to the observed resistance in AML. Alternative transporter proteins, such as the MRP1 homologues MRP2, MRP3, MRP5 and MRP6, and the breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), have been shown to be expressed at variable levels in AML patient cells. The latter proteins have been described to confer resistance to chemotherapeutic agents, such as daunorubicin, mitoxantrone, etoposide and 6-mercaptopurine, which are generally used in the treatment of AML patients; however, they have not yet proven to play a role in drug resistance in AML. The present review gives an overview of the current knowledge concerning these drug transporters, with a focus on the role of the transporter proteins in AML.

High functional P-glycoprotein activity is more often present in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemic cells in adults than in children

There is a distinct difference in prognosis between childhood versus adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). To define whether multidrug resistance (MDR) genes might contribute to this distinction, the expression and functional activity of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and MDR associated proteins (MRP) were determined with RT-PCR (MDR-1, MRP1, MRP2, MRP3) and flow cytometry (P-gp and MRP). Patient samples were obtained from 36 children and 35 adults with de novo ALL. Of these patients, 38 showed a T-lineage and 33 showed a B-lineage immunophenotype. In the samples, large variability in P-gp activity (0.8-4.9) and MRP activity (1.1-13.9) was observed. Most T-ALL patients with high P-gp activity were adults (89%). The mRNA expression of MDR-1 correlated weakly with P-gp activity. In contrast, MRP activity did not correlate with the mRNA expression of MRP1, MRP2 and MRP3. In T-ALL, a worse overall survival and event-free survival was observed with increasing P-gp activity. P-gp activity had no prognostic impact in B-lineage ALL. In addition, high MRP activity did not influence treatment outcome in either T- or B-lineage ALL. Multivariate Cox regression analysis, showed P-gp activity to be the only unfavourable prognostic factor for overall survival in T-ALL. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the prognostic relevance of P-gp activity in T-ALL. Since the majority of the patients with high P-gp activity were adults, P-gp might contribute to the poor prognosis of adult T-ALL.

Breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) in acute leukemia

Multidrug resistance, cross-resistance to structurally and functionally unrelated drugs, is an important cause of treatment failure in acute leukemia. Multidrug resistance can result from the overexpression of ATP-dependent efflux pumps, such as P-glycoprotein and members of the multidrug resistance associated protein (MRP) family. Recently a novel transporter has been identified, which is called breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), ABCG2 or mitoxantrone resistance protein. BCRP confers resistance to chemotherapeutic agents, such as mitoxantrone, doxorubicin and daunorubicin. This review describes BCRP detection techniques and the normal physiology of BCRP. The role of BCRP in the physiology of hematopoietic stem cells is addressed as well as the involvement of BCRP in multidrug resistance in acute leukemia. In AML and ALL, several studies showed that BCRP is expressed and functionally active at low, but variable levels. However, further studies are warranted to investigate its effect on clinical outcome, and explore whether patients could benefit from the combination of BCRP inhibitors and chemotherapy.

Multidrug Resistance Protein MRP1, Glutathione, and Related Enzymes

Multidrug resistance (MDR), which is cross-resistance to structurally and functionally unrelated drugs such as anthracyclines, epipodophyllotoxins and vinca alkaloids, is a major cause of treatment failure in malignant disorders. Known mechanisms of MDR are overexpression of the ATP-dependent membrane proteins P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and multidrug resistance protein (MRP1), or an increased detoxification of compounds mediated by glutathione (GSH) or GSH related enzymes. MRP1 appeared to transport drugs conjugated to GSH and also unmodified cytostatic agents in presence of GSH. The relation between MRP1, GSH and enzymes involved in GSH metabolism or GSH dependent detoxification reactions recently has drawn a lot of attention. Coordinated induction of MRP1 and GSH related enzymes is reported in malignant cells after exposure to cytostatic agents. Besides MRP1, a number of MRP1 homologs are identified, named MRP2, MRP3, MRP4, MRP5 and MRP6. The relation between MDR and expression of these MRP1 homologs is currently under research.

Proven non-carriers in BRCA families have an earlier age of onset of breast cancer

BACKGROUND Risk estimates for proven non-carriers in BRCA mutation families are inconsistent for breast cancer and lacking for ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess the age-related risks for breast and ovarian cancer for proven non-carriers in these families. METHODS A consecutive cohort study ascertained 464 proven non-carriers who had a first-degree relative with a pathogenic BRCA mutation. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the age-related cancer risks, and we calculated standardised incidence ratios. RESULTS In the 464 non-carriers, 17 breast cancers and two ovarian cancers were detected at a mean age of 47 years (95% confidence interval (CI) 32-61) and 49 years (95% CI 32-67), respectively. Overall, by the age of 50, the breast and ovarian cancer risks among non-carriers were 6.4% (95% CI 2.9-9.8%) and 0.4% (95% CI 0-1.3%), of which the breast cancer risk was statistically significantly higher than the risk in the general population. In particular, the number of breast cancers among non-carriers in BRCA1 families was higher than expected for the general population (standardised incidence ratio (SIR) 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.3). In the BRCA1 cohort, the mean number of breast cancer cases was higher in families in which non-carriers were diagnosed before the age of 50 (p=0.04). CONCLUSION The age at diagnosis of breast cancer in non-carriers in BRCA mutation families is younger than expected, yielding an increased risk in the fifth decade. This effect is most evident in BRCA1 families. If our results are confirmed by others, this could affect the advice given on breast cancer screening to proven non-carriers between the age of 40 and 50 in such families.

Variation in Mutation Spectrum Partly Explains Regional Differences in the Breast Cancer Risk of Female BRCA Mutation Carriers in the Netherlands

Background: We aimed to quantify previously observed relatively high cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA2 carriers) older than 60 in the Northern Netherlands, and to analyze whether these could be explained by mutation spectrum or population background risk. Methods: This consecutive cohort study included all known pathogenic BRCA1/2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands (N = 1,050). Carrier and general reference populations were: BRCA1/2 carriers in the rest of the Netherlands (N = 2,013) and the general population in both regions. Regional differences were assessed with HRs and ORs. HRs were adjusted for birth year and mutation spectrum. Results: All BRCA1 carriers and BRCA2 carriers younger than 60 had a significantly lower breast cancer risk in the Northern Netherlands; HRs were 0.66 and 0.64, respectively. Above age 60, the breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands was higher than in the rest of the Netherlands [HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11–14.35]. Adjustment for mutational spectrum changed the HRs for BRCA1, BRCA2 <60, and BRCA2 ≥60 years by −3%, +32%, and +11% to 0.75, 0.50, and 2.61, respectively. There was no difference in background breast cancer incidence between the two regions (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97–1.09). Conclusions: Differences in mutation spectrum only partly explain the regional differences in breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers, and for an even smaller part in BRCA1 carriers. Impact: The increased risk in BRCA2 carriers older than 60 may warrant extension of intensive breast screening beyond age 60. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(11); 2482–91. ©2014 AACR.

Ovarian cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: The impact of mutation position and family history on the cancer risk

OBJECTIVES Assessing the combined impact of mutation position, regarding the ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR), and type of cancer family history (FH) on age-related penetrance of ovarian cancer (OC) in women from BRCA1/2 families from the northern Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN A consecutive series of 1763 mutation carriers and their first-degree relatives from 355 proven BRCA1/2 families with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer with in total 248 OC cases was included. Mutations were stratified for gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) and location (within or outside the OCCR). FH was stratified for type of cancer occurring in first and second-degree relatives (OC only, breast cancer (BC) only or both OC and BC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cox-proportional hazard models were applied to estimate the OCCR effect, including and excluding a FH of cancer. RESULTS Among BRCA1 families, OC risks were higher in women with OCCR mutations versus those with non-OCCR mutations (HR=1.59, 95%CI=1.19-2.12). This effect remained significant after adjustment for the type of FH (HR=1.50, 95%CI=1.11-2.01). In BRCA2 families, mutation position did not significantly affect the OC risk (HR=1.50, 95%CI=0.74-3.04). However, in the BRCA2 group, a FH including only OC presented by itself a strong impact on OC risk (HR=4.63, 95%CI=2.38-9.02), which remained stable after adjustment for mutation position (HR=4.48, 95%CI=2.28-8.81). CONCLUSION OCCR mutations significantly increased the OC risk in BRCA1 families regardless of the type of FH, but in BRCA2 families, type of FH seems to have a higher impact than mutation position on OC risk.